Services pose acquisition challenge

Procurement leaders have a fundamental tension to address as the government considers strategic sourcing for professional services.

Professional services are not ideally suited for strategic sourcing, at least not at first glance. Service requirements can vary significantly from case to case, making it a challenge to create the high-volume purchases that drive down costs when strategic sourcing is used for commodity products. And yet, the standardized pricing and other benefits of the technique could increase transparency and accountability.

It is the central issue the federal contracting community has to address Jan. 31 at the Strategic Sourcing Forum, which is hosted jointly by the Coalition for Government Procurement , the Professional Services Council, TechAmerica and ACT-IAC. At the forum, panels of industry experts and government officials will discuss the overarching strategy for purchasing services, the General Services Administration's vision for the anticipated governmentwide professional services contract, and the future of strategic sourcing.

They have to answer whether the government can live under standard labor categories for the professional services that can differ, even slightly, between purchases. It is pricing transparency versus performance-based contracting.

"'What is strategic sourcing for professional services?' is the philosophical question," said Roger Waldron, the coalition's president.

On Jan. 23, GSA released a redacted business case for the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services—better known as OASIS. It's an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, aiming to meet the cross-government demands for professional services. OASIS is expected be the next-generation contract designed to address agencies' needs for these services. The requirements are for areas such as management and consulting, professional engineering, logistics, and finance. OASIS will also offer ancillary support services.

Tom Sharpe, GSA's new Federal Acquisition Service commissioner, is a strong proponent of transparency in pricing and also of strategic sourcing. Experts expect the OASIS contract to move forward under Sharpe's leadership with some in-depth review.

"I think it will experience a brief delay, but nothing fatal," said Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners.

In October, a GSA official had said the agency was looking to release a request for proposals in late March of this year.

"I would expect that FAS would want to see very competitive contract-level pricing for one thing," Allen added.

The overarching principle for OASIS's pricing approach is competition. To encourage that, one of OASIS' goals is defining standard labor categories. Officials also want to create a common vocabulary across the acquisition of professional services. They see standardized categories and a widely used vocabulary as a means of increasing opportunities for collaboration across government when agencies buy professional services.

"'Apples to apples' comparisons of standardized labor categories at the task-order level will drive down pricing," officials write in their case. Furthermore, "meaningful segregation of labor category groupings will drive down pricing."

Performance-based contracting stands in contrast. In fact, that push toward standard labor categories swings in the other direction, Waldron said. "It's kind of an ironic point."

Long ago, agencies would draft specifications for the most generic of products, such as copier paper and pens. Then, in the 2000s, performance-based contracting re-entered agency procurement offices. The approach let the contractor devise the most efficient and effective way to perform the work or provide the commercial item, rather than having to follow processes set by the government customer.

Unlike paper and pens though, professional services are unique from job to job. Standardization can help to justify pricing, but variety among a broad range of services may diffuse that intent, Allen said.

Yet officials expect OASIS to yield lower prices for the government. Audits have found significant duplication in professional services contracts, which officials believe leads to higher prices. Furthermore, the government has struggled to leverage its buying power. By standardizing the service categories, agencies can tie their requirements together in a bulk buy.

Agencies are increasingly relying on the companies for professional services. These services accounted for $79.7 billion in federal spending in fiscal 2010 and $77.8 billion in 2011, as the administration has attempted to decrease management support services spending. GSA officials estimate $60.27 billion in available spending for complex professional services a year beginning fiscal 2013.

"A combination of awareness, education, and client interaction will be successful in significantly impacting the level of contract duplication we are currently seeing governmentwide," reads GSA's business case.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

Reader comments

Mon, Feb 4, 2013

Great....another competitive procurement for services......how many are already out there.....low prices or contract type are totally irrelevant if program offices can't define their requirements. The hits just keep on coming.

Tue, Jan 29, 2013
SPMayor
Summit Point, WV

So - the Government is going to standarize labor categories [which for professional services in the IT arena are still subject to the prohibitions in FAR 39.104] on the assumption this will facilitate what - quality or the needless pursuit of an objective that is substantially already being reaized. The double levels of competition that now exist on IDIQ contracts provide a far more effective tool than herding all contractor personnel into standarized stovepipes whose definitions will be suspect and short-lived as technology and services continue to change and expand. And what kind of contract arrangement for these servcies - fixed price [sure - the Government knows what it wants with suffice precision to warrant a fixed price offer that will continue to have validity through performance because the Government will not change its requirement - hmmm] or maybe cost reimbursement [for which the Government believes it has the resources to deploy to provide the necessary oversight of performance and business systems and the resources to conduct audits, reviews and close-outs - hmmm] but not T&M [which format may require no greater oversight than cost type contracts, provides price assurance after double rounds of competition, flexibility to undertake projects with less than complete and known requirements and permits transiton to fixed price terms when we all agree on what is needed and when it is needed]. Yep, I can see this working real well.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately
after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.